I get the feeling you still don't get it £1.8 million is likely to have included wages as well. So if Done, Wiseman, McNulty and Vaz are on £8k a week between them, that would be £400k of Keith's budget gone. Add in £100k of signing on fees/agent fees, and those four players alone took £500k of the budget. That doesn't take in to account transfer fees by the way
Why is it likely to include the wages? It's not what Keith Hill said. Wages have never been part of the transfer budget. They're part of the wages budget. Put an argument forward by all means, but all this ballacks about like, oooh he doesn't get, it's bamboozled him... ******* leave it out. I don't do it to you.
Jesus wept mate I think you've just gone and done it right there, and to be fair you can sometimes be one of the first to get a touch hostile when it suits you I think it includes wages, because as Dyson said before, we simply haven't spent anywhere close to £1.8 million on players. Would imagine Keith was told the wage bill at the start of the season was x, and here's x amount of money plus whatever you bring in yourself to enhance the squad, through transfer fees and wages.
I've just done it right there? What, I've said: that Loko is a bit thick, he doesn't get, he's all confused? Is it? Is that what I've done? Or have I just put my side of the argument? I don't think a transfer budget includes wages. You do. I don't think you've got the issue confused. I don't think you don't understand it. I don't think you're stupid. I just think you've come to a different conclusion. I think a transfer budget includes transfer fees, signing on fees and agent fees. We've signed a few players for undisclosed fees, we've signed an awful lot of players both on loan and permanently which will have incurred agents fees and signing on fees. That is what I believe Keith Hill was talking about in the above interview. I feel it's too much, which is what I said. Maybe you're right and it includes wages, maybe you're not, but I don't feel bamboozled when I say that I don't.
Re: I've just done it right there? It includes a Lancastrian/English dictionary, soul glo for Vaz Te and the dark lead lined room that Perkins is kept in between matches.
Re: I've just done it right there? If it includes Butterfield's hats then I'm surprised we've kept it under £2 million.
Re: I've just done it right there? Nicky Clarke will be part of the medical budget. For all hair related injuries.
Re: I've just done it right there? I think we've got our wires crossed here somewhere, so apologies for obviously getting your back up. The comment regarding 'bamboozled' wasn't aimed directly at you, but the furore over the Keith Hill comment, which I think is Keith just speaking without thinking and not a factual comment about how much the signings have directly cost. At no point did I call you 'a bit thick' or 'confused', so you're being a touch over sensitive right there. I might be wrong about the wages thing, but I can't see it to be meant any other way, unless you believe some reports that Davies cost £500k, in which case £1.3 million for the rest is pretty good business in my eyes. Amazing how Hemsworth bashing is almost a daily duty on the BBS these days, but say anything against the grain with anyone else and the walls go straight up.
Re: I've just done it right there? You did get my back up, sorry if I over reacted. If I took part in the daily Hemsworth bashing then I'd be an enormous hypocrite for reacting like I have, but I think I generally stay out of it. I could well be wrong, Keith Hill could have been including wages in the figure he quoted. But if I am then it's because I'm wrong, not because the subject was beyond me and I just didn't understand. I wouldn't be surprised if the £1.8 million bears no relationship what so ever to our transfer budget with or without wages and was just used to make a point.
Re: I've just done it right there? I would say this is exactly what's happened, and we should just assume Keith doesn't always think when speaking